Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SQ015001902
HULL, J.In this latest appeal, Marilyn T., mother of the minors, appeals from orders setting a review hearing for a contested hearing and briefly excluding her from the courtroom. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].) Appellant argues the juvenile court failed to control the proceedings by continuing the case instead of considering her evidence on both jurisdiction and the minors’ current condition and welfare.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On February 25, 2008, the parties were before the court on a status review/permanency planning hearing. Appellant addressed her ongoing request for production of a videotape; discussed her need for protective orders in federal court; stated that she brought equipment to copy the tape; began discussing what she believed was fraud by the agency; and generally would not focus on the subject the court wished to address. Appellant again broke in as the court discussed the review hearing before the court with counsel and the court excluded appellant from the courtroom. As she was leaving, appellant advised the court the review report was fraudulent.
Appellant’s counsel informed the court his client disagreed with certain findings recommended by the report and requested a contested hearing on the issue of returning the minors to appellant. The court expressed concern that, as always, appellant wanted to relitigate closed issues and asked counsel what current evidence there was to be presented. Counsel pointed to evidence that the minors were not doing well in placement, appellant had been prescribed new more effective medication, a recent visit had gone well, and appellant was now a viable placement. Counsel recognized much of the matter had been litigated before but noted that at review hearings, placement was always at issue. The court agreed to set a contested hearing on limited issues. Counsel indicated he would expect to call both of the minors to testify. The continued hearing was set.
The court then conferred with counsel on the tape appellant had requested and asked the clerk to make a copy and provide it to counsel. The court permitted appellant to return to the courtroom and advised her of the next hearing date.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the juvenile court failed to control the proceedings by continuing the case instead of considering her evidence on both jurisdiction and the minors’ current condition and welfare.
The court has inherent power to control the litigation before it as well as all proceedings connected with the litigation. (Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1351; Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 778.)
Because appellant, through counsel, wished to contest the evidence in the review report and present evidence relevant to returning the minors to her care, the court, in continuing the matter, impliedly found that a continuance to a time when the contested matter could be heard was in the minors’ best interest. (§ 352.) Thus, contrary to appellant’s contentions, the court thereby exercised its power to control the proceedings to ensure an adequate opportunity to consider appellant’s evidence before making findings and orders at the review hearing. Appellant’s claim that the court improperly excluded evidence is incorrect since no evidentiary hearing occurred on February 25, 2008, only the preliminary matter of selecting a contested hearing date and limiting evidence to relevant issues.
Respondent asserts that appellant, once again, is attempting to relitigate the original jurisdictional findings and orders and may not raise such issues in this subsequent appeal. Respondent seeks dismissal of the appeal. While appellant cannot prevail on her claims, we decline to dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P.J. MORRISON, J.